Search

Introduction: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a widely used measurement tool to assess clinical competence in the health sciences. There is little published evidence of its use in Mexican medical schools., Objective: To assess clinical competence in medical students with an OSCE, before and after the Medical Internship., Methods: Prospective cohort study, pre- post-test research design. The assessed population was medical students at UNAM Faculty of Medicine in Mexico in their Internship year. The instrument was an 18-stations OSCE, three stations per academic area of the Internship curriculum., Results: We assessed the clinical competence of 278 students in a pretest OSCE when starting the Internship year, and tested them 10 months later with an equivalent post-test OSCE. The sample of students was 30.4% of the total Internship population. Test reliability with Cronbach's alpha was 0.62 in the pre-test and 0.64 in the post-test. The global mean score in the pretest OSCE was 55.6 ± 6.6 and in the post-test 63.2 ± 5.7 (p < 0.001), with a Cohen's d of 1.2., Conclusions: The clinical competence of medical students measured with an OSCE is higher after the medical internship year. This difference suggests that the internship can influence the development of clinical competence in medical students.

Background: The Mexican Accreditation Council for Rheumatology annually certifies trainees in Rheumatology using a multiple-choice test and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Since 2015, candidate's communication skills (CS) have been rated by both patients and by physician examiners and correlated with results on the OSCE. This study compared the CS from candidates to annual accreditation in Rheumatology as rated by patients and by physician examiners, and assessed whether these correlated with candidate's performance in the OSCE., Material and Methods: From 2015 to 2017, 8areas of CS were evaluated using a Likert scale, in each OSCE station that involved a patient. Both patient and physician evaluators were trained annually and their evaluations were performed blindly. The associations were calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient., Results: In general, candidates were given high CS scores; the scores from patients of the candidate's CS were better than those of physician examiners; within the majority of the stations, both scores were found to correlate moderately. In addition, the scoring of CS correlated with trainee performance at the corresponding OSCE station. Interestingly, better correlations were found when the skills were rated by the patients compared to physician scores. The average CS score was correlated with the overall OSCE performance for each trainee, but not with the multiple-choice test, except in the 2017 accreditation process, when a weak correlation was found., Conclusions: CS assessed during a national accreditation process correlated with the candidate's performance at the station level and with the overall OSCE., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Reumatología y Colegio Mexicano de Reumatología. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Mexican Accreditation Council for Rheumatology certifies trainees (TR) on an annual basis using both a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). For 2013 and 2014, the OSCE pass mark (PM) was set by criterion referencing as ≥6 (CPM), whereas overall rating of borderline performance method (BPM) was added for 2015 and 2016 accreditations. We compared OSCE TR performance according to CPM and BPM, and examined whether correlations between MCQ and OSCE were affected by PM., Methods: Forty-three (2015) and 37 (2016) candidates underwent both tests. Altogether, OSCE were integrated by 15 validated stations; one evaluator per station scored TR performance according to a station-tailored check-list and a Likert scale (fail, borderline, above range) of overall performance. A composite OSCE score was derived for each candidate. Appropriate statistics were used., Results: Mean (±standard derivation [SD]) MCQ test scores were 6.6±0.6 (2015) and 6.4±0.6 (2016) with 5 candidates receiving a failing score each year. Mean (±SD) OSCE scores were 7.4±0.6 (2015) and 7.3±0.6 (2016); no candidate received a failing CPM score in either 2015 or 2016 OSCE, although 21 (49%) and 19 (51%) TR, respectively, received a failing BPM score (calculated as 7.3 and 7.4, respectively). Stations for BPM ranged from 4.5 to 9.5; overall, candidates showed better performance in CPM. In all, MCQ correlated with composite OSCE, r=0.67 (2015) and r=0.53 (2016); P≤.001. Trainees with a passing BPM score in OSCE had higher MCQ scores than those with a failing score., Conclusions: Overall, OSCE-PM selection impacted candidates' performance but had a limited affect on correlation between clinical and practical examinations., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Reumatología y Colegio Mexicano de Reumatología. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In Latin America there is almost no published information about knowledge retention and formative assessment of competencies in medical students, during medical school training and curricular changes., Objective: To assess knowledge level and clinical competencies in medical students at the end of the second year in a new curriculum., Methods: Observational, cross-sectional study in UNAM Faculty of Medicine students. A diagnostic evaluation was performed in the first class of the "Plan of Studies 2010" curriculum, as part of an integral program evaluation strategy. The assessment had two components: theoretical and practical., Results: 456 (87%) of the 524 students that successfully completed the second year of Plan 2010 were assessed. The written test had 211 items, a mean score of 60 ± 14.5, mean difficulty index of 0.60, reliability with Cronbach's alpha of 0.85. The OSCE mean global score was 58 ± 9, Cronbach's alpha of 0.36, and G-coefficient of 0.48, and results were provided for each station. Results by area of knowledge, course, and station were reported., Conclusions: The results in general are acceptable, compared with previous written evaluations at the end of the second year, suggesting that the new program is achieving its educational goals. Competencies were formally assessed for the first time in our Institution, establishing a starting point for follow-up. The study provided useful information to the institution, teachers and students.